Idiots like this give the press more anti ammo

[GRAYRID3R]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519631,00.html

HOUSTON — A 7-year-old boy who was allegedly shot in the head by a couple who thought he and three other people were trespassing on their property died Saturday, authorities said.

Donald Coffey Jr. died Saturday morning at a Houston hospital, less than two days after the boy was struck in the head by shotgun pellets, Liberty County Sheriff's Cpl. Hugh Bishop said.

Sheila Muhs and her husband, Gayle Muhs, both 45, were charged with second-degree felony counts of aggravated assault in the shootings Thursday. They were being held at Liberty County Jail with bail set at $25,000 each and had not yet retained an attorney, Bishop said.

Bishop said the district attorney could upgrade the charges to murder on Monday, but investigators were "still trying to get the circumstances behind the incident."

The boy, his 5-year-old sister, their father and a family friend were off-roading near a residential area about 40 miles northeast of Houston when they were shot after stopping so the children could go to the bathroom.

Authorities said the couple fired after they mistakenly thought the group was trespassing on their property.

Bishop said the area includes a dirt road, trees and overgrown brush and that it wasn't uncommon for people to go off-roading there. The Houston Chronicle reported that a sign in front of the suspects' home reads: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will."

Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor said Sheila Muhs fired a 12-gauge shotgun once, then handed it to her husband, who also fired once.

DeFoor said Sheila Muhs then called 911 and told the dispatcher: "They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them."

DeFoor said the levee belonged to the subdivision and was not private property.

Bishop said there was no indication the unarmed victims did anything threatening toward the Muhs.

Donald Coffey Sr. suffered a pellet wound in his right shoulder and his daughter, Destiny, suffered a wound to the elbow. The family friend, 30-year-old Patrick Cammack, was in serious condition Saturday with a head wound, Memorial Hermann-Texas Medical Center spokeswoman Alex Rodriguez said.

We have to keep showing our good sides to make up for morons like this!

 

[230RN]

Trespassers will be shot. Survivers will be reshot!! Smile I will.

Self-righteous idjit. No matter what the circumstances, no matter how it comes down, putting up a sign like that is...

 

[Dumptruck]

I guess it would be too much to ask for someone to identify the individuals they are shooting at before they go firing off into the woods.

 

[Taptaps]

Oh man. This is ridiculous. I am going to find out everything I can about the facts of the incident, but this seems like casual attempted murder, simple as that. I believe people have the right to protect themselves and their property, but i do not think that protecting yourself from an imminent threat of physical harm to you or anyone else around you is even close to being in the same league as defending your property from trespassers.

Sure, if they come on to your property threatening people, with a weapon, or going crazy, they may end up getting shot, but I would have a real tough time taking a distance shot at someone that is not coming at me with the intent to harm. i do not care if they are walking off with my flat screen in their arms. Now, if cut off the path of this thief and tell him to drop my stuff, while giving myself good distance with a weapon lowered, but ready, then, depending on what that man decides to do, he might get shot, or he might drop the TV and run away (i might shoot him for dropping the tv j/k), or he might get scared enough to sit on his hands til the cops come and take care of the close contact for me.

Whatever, the point i am trying to make is that some people get it into their heads that the only way to keep their pride, or to teach the "scum" a lesson for trespassing is to shoot them. I think many people, especially the people that killed this little boy, are just itching to shoot someone and they just can't help themselves when they see a situation that their itchy trigger brains skew into a justifiable shooting.

Man o man o man. It really sounds like these people, cowards without a doubt, could not even see their target and were shooting through the brush.:banghead:
this is so pathetic and it is the worst kind of incident for the gun control politics

 

[Kind of Blued]

Even as a Libertarian with extremist views on liberty, I don't see the point in shooting someone who is stepping on your grass, or destroying your property for that matter.

It's called civil court, and it's a place where you can make anothers wrongs right. This idiot, of course, will be dealing with a different court entirely. I have no sympathy for gun owners such as these.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I will not be surprised if before it's over it turns out that these morons were not legal gun owners anyway.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Wait, how is this possible? People keep posting "You can shoot them in Texas!" Does this mean Texans actually have to be selective about targets?

 

[Cannonball888]

were charged with second-degree felony counts of aggravated assault in the shootings Thursday.

The sign will be their demise. It shows a pre-meditated malicious intent. They should upgrade the charge to murder.

 

[jerkface11]

The sign will be their demise. It shows a pre-meditated malicious intent. They should upgrade the charge to murder.

Yeah because a piece of plastic with writing on it makes shooting a kid worse!!!

 

[nc76]

The sign shows their arrogance and general mindset of gun ownership. I wonder if they were drunk? Idiots. It does nothing to help our cause, but it shouldn't hurt it no more than a drunk driver hurting the cause of all other drivers. Unfortunately those with an agenda against guns and gun owners will not see it that way.

Edit: I just read the linked story and saw their mugshots. I will go out on a limb here and speculate based on looks and actions that they are worthless pieces of trash. I wouldn't be surprised if they were drunk or under the influence of something. And like was posted previously, I wonder if they were even able to own a firearm legally? It will be the DA's job to present the evidence, but I don't have a good feeling that it will go in their way.

 

[Starship1st]

I suppose that the kids going on their property posed a threat? I wish that rather than being tried in court these two were tried by the responsible gun citizens?

I think that their punishment would be sever.

 

[SCKimberFan]

I will not be surprised if before it's over it turns out that these morons were not legal gun owners anyway.

I wonder if they were drunk?

or quite possibly had a meth lab or a stash of drugs in their house.

 

[DagoRed]

If being stupid were illegal, those two fools would get the electric chair.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If they allow people to be shot just for trespassing (which these kids weren't doing) then they need to change that law.

Texas law does not allow for the shooting of people merely for trespassing.

I get sick of reading posts, many of them from Texans, that drone on about how you can shoot anyone you please just because they are on your property.

The exact law mentioning "trespassing" is

Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or

(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

At first glance it might seem that it's allowed, but the law requires the force to be "immediately necessary" to a "reasonable" person.

Gonna have a hell of a time selling that by itself, let alone deadly force.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm not sure that Section 9.41 can be properly interpreted out of context. Section 9.42 covers the use of deadly force:


http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Nothing about trespassing; deadly force permitted only at night and only to prevent certain specific serious felonies or to prevent someone from fleeing with property after committing specified serious felonies, and then only when there is no other means of doing either.

I'd say the shooters' geese are cooked. The question will be one of degree.

The statement that they fired because the thought someone was trespassing would seem to constitute a confession.

And that ridiculous sign sure won't help.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Nothing about trespassing; deadly force permitted only at night and only to prevent certain specific serious felonies or to prevent someone from fleeing with property after committing specified serious felonies, and then only when there is no other means of doing either.

Yeah, I was showing that even plain old force will barely sell with trespassing. The 9.41 law is the only one that mentions trespassing specifically. Guess I didn't say it very well.

These guys are toast for sure.

 

[The Deer Hunter]

Wait, how is this possible? People keep posting "You can shoot them in Texas!" Does this mean Texans actually have to be selective about targets?

I was wondering about that.

I am under the impression that you can shoot trespassers on your property while in Texas. If that is the case, then why would it matter if it's a 5 year old kid, or a burglar?

It's still really messed up.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I am under the impression that you can shoot trespassers on your property while in Texas.

Absolutely not.Even using plain old "force" is rarely acceptable, let alone deadly force (laws listed above).

I really hope there are not Texans out there that believe this. I'm OK with other state's residents thinking we can do what we want

 

[Doggy Daddy]

I can't look at their mugshots without hearing banjo music...

DD

 

[Mr. Bojangles]

:banghead:

 

[tasco 74]

yep these idiots were wrong in so many ways..... if you could shoot someone for just being on your lawn or property i'd have been dead long ago around here.... my only transportation is my feet and sometimes i take shortcuts across properties........ if i come across the owners i get a hi how ya doin not a shotgun pointed at my head..... these morons do need to be prosecuted ................

LIFE IS SHORT.....

 

[GRAYRID3R]

These morons need to be removed from the gene pool. Hopefully they won't have the opportunity to reproduce in prison.

 

[ohgrady]

The link below has an article that shows the front of the shooter's house (well actually a shack) and the sign,their pickup, and their confederate flag. For some reason, I assumed the "sign" was something professionally produced, like the signs I've seen in stores that say people found here in the night will be found her in the morning and have a picture of a handgun. The I saw the picture-someone hand painted it- the picture will be used in their trial!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1180136/Boy-killed-gun-toting-Texas-ranchers-blast-young-family-stopped-loo.html

I was thinking about the headline, "Gun-toting Texas ranchers"?? There is no mention that these people are ranchers in the article. And does retrieving a firearm from ones home or car make you "gun-toting"?

 

[Hungry Seagull]

Tasco 74 I had a couple cut through my lands across a hole in my fence, I intercepted them and asked thier purpose. They giggled and smiled and cozied up and so on.... I realized I was dealing with two love birds who found a neighbors's tree a convient quiet place. Which...

happens to be out of sight of HIS Pa, if you get my drift.

I let em go. Sometimes it's not about trespassing. I wonder now that they are grown up what they will have to do to actually go round to that one house and ask for the daughter's hand. Heh.

Once on a side state road in New Mexico I pulled in to a oasis for a rest, I spotted a home on a bluff with a Northern Virginia Battle Flag on it and below a glint of a rifle scope, sun was setting to my west. I simply went about business of settling down the truck for a bit of rest knowing that actions were being observed very closely. Ho-hum. Kinda hard to shoot someone polishing mirriors and removing bugs from glass and make it justified.

 

[rbernie]

I'm with SCKimberFan - dollars to donuts that these fine upstanding landowners had a meth lab on the premises.